a difference one believes not another on God's a difference he justifies one not another but Christ stands only as a common cause his Satisfaction is in communi and constitutes no one righteous more than another He is no more as it seems the end of the Law for Righteousness to the Believer than to the Unbeliever Now if this be as it is durus sermo then it remains that Christ's Righteousness is by particular imputation made over to Believers and so becomes the matter of their Justification accordingly the Apostle in Rom. the fifth speaks of it not as a common cause but as peculiarized to Believers such as receive Grace He doth not speak of what Christ merited for all but of what Christ as an Head communicates to his Members The scope of the parallel between the two Adams evinces this it being no other than this That both of them communicate to those who are in them The sum of all is Adam and Christ are set forth by the Apostle as two communicative Heads if Adam's sin be imputatively ours so is Christ's Righteousness also I should now pass on to another Reason But possibly some may object That there is a great difference between the two Heads We were seminally in Adam we receive an Humane Nature from him but we were not seminally in Christ we receive not a Nature from him therefore though Adam's sin be imputatively ours yet so is not Christ's Righteousness In answer to this I shall offer several things First We receive an Humane Nature from Adam but is this the only foundation of the Imputation of his sin to us No surely Then all the sins of our Progenitors should be as much imputed to us as the first sin of Adam was Which I cannot at all believe Adam was a moral Head of Holiness and Righteousness to all Mankind but since the fall no Man no not Adam himself was such the sin of Adam is universally imputed to all even to the most holy but so are not the sins of other Progenitors we were not therefore one with Adam only by a Natural union but by a Divine Constitution Secondly We receive an Human Nature from Adam and have we not a Divine Nature from Christ are we not called his Seed are we not begotten by his Spirit and Word were we not in a Spiritual sence seminally in his Blood and Merits how else should any such thing as the New Creature be produced in a lapsed Nature These things are as proper to make us Parts and Members of Christ as an Humane Nature is to make us Parts and Members of Adam therefore the communication of Righteousness from Christ must be as full and great as the communication of sin is from Adam Bishop Vsher tells us That we have a more strict conjunction in the Spirit with Christ then ever we had in Nature with Adam one and the same Spirit is in Christ and Believers but there is not one Soul in Adam and his Posterity the communication from Christ therefore if answerable to the Union must be as great nay greater than that from Adam Thirdly Adam was a Head both by Nature and by Constitution Sin unless in Conjunction with Nature could not pass from him to us neither could we without a Nature conveyed from him have been members of him It diâ— therefore appertain to his Headship to convey a Nature to us but Christ was an Head not by Nature But above it by Divine Constitution he was not to convey Naturals to us but super-naturals since the Fall Righteousness was not to pass to us in Conjunction with Nature Nature was to be from one Head and Righteousness from another we were to be made Members of Christ not by communication of Nature but of Grace it therefore did not appertain to his Headship to communicate Nature to us yet was his Headship as potent to convey Righteousness to us as Adam's was to convey sin the Divine Constitution made him such an Head that his Satisfaction might become ours for our Justification thus much touching this Argument drawn from the Headship of Christ Fourthly Those Scripture phrases of being purged sprinkled cleansed washed justifyed in the Blood of Christ notably import two things the one that Justification is in a signal manner attributed to Christ's Blood as Sanctification is to the Spirit the other that Christ's Blood justifies by way of Application but neither of these can stand if that Blood be only a meritorious cause not the first how can Justification be signally attributed to it when as a meritorious cause it no less impetrates Sanctification than Justification nothing singular is done by it in the one more than in the other not the second how can it justifie by Application when as a meritorious cause it operates only by impetration You will say Christ's Blood is applyed in the effect in a pardon I answer those Scripture phrases before quoted shew that the Blood it self is applyed to us how else is it said that we are purged cleansed sprinkled washed in it unless it be applyed to us the phrases how emphatical soever seem to be improper surely a satisfaction must in its own nature be a justifying matter against the Law next to an absolute conformity to the Law Nothing is or can be more justifying against it then a satisfaction when God hath provided a plenary satisfaction to justifie us how may we think that it is not it self applyed to us actually to justifie us or that something less than it self should do it the Scripture sets forth this Application on both hands on our part it is applyed by Faith We receiving the Atonement Rom. 5.11 and Christ being a propitiation through Faith in his Blood Rom. 3.25 and on God's part by Imputation we being made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 and the Righteousness of God being upon us Rom. 3.22 I cannot tell how to think that such an excellent justifying matter as Christ's Satisfaction is should be provided for us and yet not applyed to us according to the terms of the Gospel a pardon is as I take it upon the satisfaction not meerly made but applyed for it is given to Believers only if the satisfaction be it self applyed then that is our Righteousness against the Law if it be applyed in the effect that is in a pardon then the pardon is the very application and not a pardon upon a satisfaction applyed or if there be a pardon upon a satisfaction applyed there will be a pardon before a pardon a pardon in the application and a pardon upon it if the satisfaction be it self applyed then it may precede a pardon and a pardon may be upon it but if it be applyed only in the effect in a pardon then it cannot precede a pardon no more then a pardon can precede it self You will say a pardon is not upon a satisfaction applyed but is the very application To this I answer the Learned Mr. Gataker saith
Imputatio non nititur fictitiâ aliquâ suppositione sed verâ participatione rei imputatae Imputation doth not stand upon any fictitious supposition but upon a true participation of the thing imputed These things being thus laid down I shall come directly to the point my Opinion is That the Righteousness of Christ is not meerly the meritorious cause of Justification but somwhat more neither is it meerly imputed to us in the Effects but it self as a satisfaction is so far imputed to us as to be the material cause of Justification as to the Law I think nothing can be more proper to justifie us as the Law than that which satisfied it I cannot tell how to suppose that one thing should satisfie the Law and another justifie against it And here I shall first lay down my Reasons and then answer the Objections made against my Opinion For Reasons I shall offer several things First I shall begin with that memorable phrase The Righteousness of God which cannot but be of great moment in this point some take it for the mercy of God and so it is sometimes taken in the Old Testament The Mercy of the Lord is upon them that fear him and his Righteousness unto Childrens Children Psal 103.17 where Mercy and Righteousness are one and the same but in the New Testament where this phrase often occurs it is never so taken the Righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel Rom. 1.17 Revealed that which before was only obscurely hinted was in the Gospel clearly opened but the Mercy of God was not only darkly hinted but openly proclaimed in very high and stately terms in the Old Testament An Instance we have of it Exod. 34.6 and 7. where the Titles of Mercy carry as much of Glory and Magnificence as any thing can do We are said to be made the Righteousness of God 2 Cor. 5.21 but never to be made his Mercy neither would be at all proper to say so Others take it for our Inherent Graces which are our Evangelical Righteousness but these though they come down from Heaven are never called the Righteousness nay on the contrary they are called our own as being inherent in us Hence we find Your Faith Rom. 1.8 your Love 2 Cor. 8.8 your Patience Luke 21.19 your Hope 1 Pet. 1.21 your Righteousness Matth. 5.20 that which in Scripture is called the Righteousness of God is not the same with that which is called our own there were our Inherent Graces imported in that phrase Faith which is a prime excellent Grace must have its share therein but the Righteousness of God is by Faith Rom. 3.22 Therefore it is not Faith the Righteousness of God is upon the Believer therefore it is not in him Others take it for Pardon but neither can this Interpretation stand The Jews were ignorant of God's Righteousness Rom. 10.3 but surely they were not ignorant that God was a God pardoning iniquity that Pardon which in the Old Testament is elegantly decyphered by Covering Blotting out Remembring no more Casting away sin is not in the New vailed in an Expreslion so obscure and improper for it as that of the Righteousness of God seems to be to that intent leaving these I take it that the Righteousness of God imports that of Christ and in this sence the phrase is as Glorious and Illustrious as it would be obscure and improper to denote Pardon The Righteousness of Christ is indeed the Righteousness of God it is the Righteousness of him who is God of him whose Blood is called the Blood of God it is a pure perfect Righteousness which can consist before the Tribunal of God which was by God ordained to make us Righteous This is it which being before but darkly hinted was in the Gospel manifestly revealed this is that which is upon the Believer as a rich Covering to hide his imperfections this is it which the Jews were ignorant of and submitted not unto the Apostle tells us That they submitted not to the Righteousness of God Rom. 10.3 and what that Righteousness is the next Verse expresses for Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth the Law hath its end in nothing but in his Righteousness which satisfied it But besides there is one place which in terminis calls the Righteousness of God the Righteousness of Christ to them who have obtained like precious Faith with us through the Righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Pet. 1.1 Observe it is not through the Righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ as noting two Persons but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God and our Saviour as betokening one as Bishop Downham hath observed like that Tit. 2.13 The glorious Appearance of the great God and our Saviour where one Person is intended Thus far it appears that the Righteousness of God denotes the Righteousness of Christ That which remains is to enquire Whether the Righteousness of God never import any more than a meer meritorious cause 'T is true in that place 2 Pet. 1.1 it imports no more but in others it speaks further We are made the Righteousness of God 2 Cor. 5.21 The Righteousness of God is upon us Rom. 3.22 and as a paraphrase upon the Righteousness of God the Apostle tells us that Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to the Believer Rom. 10.4 Here I take it the Righteousness of Christ is set forth not only as a meritorious antecedent cause of Justification but as an Ingredient a material cause in it he that hath only the effect cannot be said to be made the Impetrating cause no more can we be said to be made the Righteousness of Christ if we only have the fruit of it not the thing it self That Righteousness as a meritorious cause may be said to be for us but not to be upon us unless by Imputation it be made ours Christ in respect of Merit only is no more for Righteousness which yet is the Emphasis of the Text than for sanctifying Graces these being as much merited as the other Christ is so far Righteousness as he is the end of the Law and that he is in the satisfaction it self not in Remission which is the effect of it the Satisfaction it self therefore is made ours in Justification It seems to me a great departure from the Text to say Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness that is for Pardon which is the Effect or for Impunity which is the Effect of the Effect Secondly It is utterly impossible that there should be a Justification without a Righteousness Constitutive Justification makes us Righteous Estimative or sentential Justification esteems or pronounces us such a Justification cannot be without a Righteousness nor can any thing be a Righteousness unless it answer the Law What then is our Righteousness as to the Law Faith answers the Gospel terms But what answers the Law Surely nothing under Heaven
manner Christ's satisfaction doth first in order of Nature make us righteous by it self imputed and then by the sanctifying Graces communicated by vertue of it Now if Christs satisfaction be not it self communicated to us as Members of him then the Glory of his Headship seems to fail he is not so strong an Head as Adam Righteousness is not so amply communicated from Christ as sin is from Adam Adam communicates the sin it self to us but Christ communicates his Righteousness in the effects only if Christ only merited Justification the Glory of his Headship seems not to stand in it in Sanctification he as our Head communicates sanctifying Graces to us to be the matter of our Sanctification but in Justification he doth not communicate his satisfaction to us to be the matter of our Justification he merited Justification upon Gospel-terms before our Union with him What doth he after or more as our head in Justification his satisfaction not being communicated to us he seems not to be so compleat an Head in Justification as in Sanctification to make this Argument from Christ's Headship more clear it will not be amiss to consider some passages in that fifth Chapter to the Romans Wherefore as by one Man sin entred into the World and Death by Sin and so Death passed upon all Men for that all have sinned verse 12. in this and the two following verses one part of the collation viz. That of Adam being laid down where is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collationis or how is it to be supplyed some Divines think that it is quite omitted by the Apostle others conceive it to be couched in those words Who is the figure of him that was to come verse 14. but whether it be the one or the other surely there must be somewhat understood on Christ's part as correspondent to that of Adam who was a Type of him Piscator supplies it thus Plena comparatio sic habet quemadmodum per Adam peccatum introiit in omnes homines per peccatum mors eo quod in Adamo omnes peccarunt sic per Christum Justitia introiit in omnes credentes per Justitiam vita eo quod in Christo omnes credentes pro peccatis satisfecerunt he saith that all Believers satisfied in Christ I intend somewhat more in this point then I suppose he did Yet I would speak less in words then so I think the expression that we satisfied in him is not an expedient one though in Scripture nothing to me seems to sound more like an answer to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 12. then that Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 5.15 though the Learned Camero saith De Eccles fol. 224. in Christi morte Ecclesiae est veluti satisfaciens Deo Yet I wave that expression for it seems to import as if Christ's satisfaction were in its full latitude imputed to us It is as much as I intend that we as Members of him do in a measure participate of his satisfaction so far that it is the matter of our Justification against the Law Adam's sin is is not communicated to us in the full latitude but so far as to make us sinners Christ's Satisfaction is not communicated to us in the full latitude but so far as to make us righteous But to go on to another passage in that Chapter As by one Man's disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Vers 19. In this famous Text those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as and so also are to be noted it is as much as to say as it was in the one case so it is in the other as Adam's sin was derived upon us so also is Christ's Righteousness if Adam's sin were in some measure communicated to us to make us sinners then Christ's Righteousness is in some measure comunicated to us to make us righteous we see what is the best way to judge how far Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us not by comparing the Imputation of our Sin to Christ and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us but by comparing the Imputation of Adam's sin to us and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us in that Text He was made Sin for us that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 there is no as and so also as there is in the parallel of the two Adams though I think it hard to say that sin was Imputed to Christ only in the effects for unless our sin as it was fundamentum paenae was Imputed to him unless it was so far Imputed as to render his sufferings punishments his sufferings were not penal and if not penal sin was not at all imputed to him no not in the effect yet if sin was Imputed to him only in the effect it follows not that his Righteousness should be so only Imputed to us the Apostle saith not as he was made sin so we are made Righteousness there is no as and so in that Text as there is in the parallel of the Adam's there is a great disparity in the cases Sin was not imputed to Christ to constitute him a sinner but Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us to constitute us righteous Sin was imputed to Christ that it might be absorpt and swallowed up in his sweet-smelling Sacrifice but Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us that it may abide upon us as the matter of our Justification We see here in the point of Imputed Righteousness we must take our measures not from our sin imputed to Christ but from Adam's sin imputed to us Further The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 19. Verse emphatically points out the material cause of Justification Christ's Righteousness as a meritorious cause is an impulsive to God to constitute us righteous but to be an impulsive to constitute is not properly to constitute as a meritorious cause it impetrates that we shall be made righteous but by that Impetration it doth no more make us righteous than by the Impetration of sanctifying Graces it makes us holy notwithstanding these Impetrations we are not indeed holy without those Graces nor are we righteous without a Righteousness as a meritorious cause it was before Faith nay before the Covenant of Promise but then it constituted none righteous It was for all but it constitutes not all You will say As soon as a Man by Faith hath a capacity it constitutes him righteous How so It was a meritorious cause before Faith now it is no more at the first it procured that Men should be justified upon Gospel-terms and now what new or fresh act or energy hath it Indeed there is somewhat more on Man's part viz. Faith somewhat more on God's viz. Justifying the Believer But what is there more on Christ's the merit is as before one and the same and impetrates Justification on Gospel-terms for all on our part there is
the promise They cannot possibly be plucked out of Christs hand without their own voluntary consent So the promise runs thus They shall not be plucked out of his hand but only in such a way as the same is possible to be done that is the words are absurd and signifie just nothing But if the promises made to Saints were thus conditional what are those made to Christ Hath not God said That Christ should have a seed nay and be satisfied in it Isa 53.10 11 Hath he not said nay sworn to Christ That his seed such as believers are should endure for ever that his throne a chief part of which is in their hearts should be as the Sun Psal 89.35 36 And are these promises conditional also It 's true that there was a condition on Christs part That he should obey and suffer for us but was there any on ours Must these promises run thus Christ shall have a seed and a throne if man will No the promises are absolute no mention at all is made of mans will But if the Graces of the Saints may fail so may these promises also Christ might have no seed at least no enduring one such as may satisfie him His throne at least that choice part of it which is in the hearts of the Saints may utterly fail and come to nothing If the matter be left to the Lottery of mans will How is God true to his Son Christ Possibly there might be no feed of new-creatures at all or if there were they might flie away from the birth in an utter apostacy Nay what if the event did hit right and answer the promise yet God is never the truer for that neither can we say that he fulfilled his promise in that event which was never secured by his grace but came to pass as it happened by the lucky hit of mans will To conclude Upon the whole matter it appears God hath taken believers into his own hand their Graces shall not fail because his Truth and Faithfulness cannot their standing is sure because his promises cannot fall to the ground To add no more We see here how we ought in all humility to give Grace its due and this we cannot do unless we give it all Non est devotionis dedisse prope totum Deo sed frandis retinuisse vel minimum saith Prosper To give Nine hundred ninety nine parts to Grace and reserve one only to mans will is more than true devotion will bear it 's just to give the whole unto God The Jewish Rabbins say That he who receives any good thing in this world without a benediction is a robber of God but the greatest sacriledg of all is when we own not the Grace of God in supernatural blessings which relate to the world to come Verè humiles totum Deo reddunt True humble souls render all to God Let us then acknowledg with Jacob We are less than the least of all his mercies We were naturally undone unclean creatures proper objects of wrath Why did God send his Son in the flesh to seek that which was lost wash us in a laver of his own blood and bring us into favour with him We might have been born in the dark places of the earth where Christ is not named where the Sun of Righteousness shines not in Pardons and Graces Why did God place us in a Region of Evangelical light and set Jesus Christ with all his beauties and treasures evidently before us Under the Gospel there are many blind eyes and hard hearts many poor souls dead and buried in a grave of sin Why did he open our eyes upon heavenly mysteries and melt our hearts into the Divine will Why did he raise us up out of our spiritual graves and quicken us unto a Divine life There is still corruption within and temptation without us Our Graces are weak and in themselves defectible creatures Why doth he supply us with fresh influences of grace and maintain the new-creature in us Why are we not swallowed up in temptations and corruptions but kept and preserved to the heavenly Kingdom Here we must glory in our God and cry out Grace Grace All the good we have is from that Fountain Thus St. Paul ascribes all to Grace I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me I labour yet not I but the grace of God which was with me He acknowledges no I-ness but ascribes all his spiritual being and working to Grace I will shut up all with that of Bonaventure Furti reus est qui sibi aliquid retinet cum Deus dicat gloriam meam alteri non dabo He is guilty of Theft who retains any thing to himself when God hath said My glory I will not give to another All glory therefore be to him alone CHAP. XI Chap. 11 Touching Justification as to the Law Christ's Righteousness constitutes us Righteous A double imputation One to the proper Agent another to those in Conjunction the Conjunctions between Christ and us how Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us that it is not only the Meritorious but Material cause of our Justification this is proved from that phrase The Righteousness of God from the nature of Justification from the parallel of the two Adams from other phrases in Scripture from a pardon as not being the same with Justification from Christ's suffering in our stead the Objections against imputed Righteousness answered what justifies us as to the Gospel terms the Necessity and connexion of a twofold Righteousness how we are justified by Faith how Good Works are necessary A short Conclusion THERE remaineth yet behind one Eminent piece of Grace I mean Justification this in Luther is Articulus stantis cadentis Ecclesiae and in Chemnitius Arx propugnaculum Religionis Christianae a Sacred thing it is and difficult to explain the true measures of it cannot be taken from any thing but the holy Scripture where this Mystery is revealed Touching Justification there are three things considerable viz. First we are constituted righteous then esteemed or pronounced such and at last treated as such The first conferrs a righteousness upon us the second ownes and declares it the third gives us the consequent reward thereof The first we have in that phrase of Justifying the Ungodly Rom. 4.5 for that unless it were collative of a Righteousness would be the same abomination with the Justifying the Wicked Prov. 17.15 The second in that phrase of Justifying the Righteous Deut. 25.1 where the word Justifying is not effectionis sed aestimationis declarationis significativum the third is not so much a part of Justification as a consequent of it neither do I remember that it is called Justification in Scripture The first is the foundation of the other two unless a Man be constituted righteous God who is Truth it self cannot esteem or pronounce him such for that were for him to err which is impossible neither can he who is Sanctity it self treat him as such for an
unrighteous Person cannot possibly enter into the holy Heaven where Eternal Life is given to the Righteous The main Quaere in Justification is What it is that constitutes us righteous before God Righteousness relates to some Law we are under a double Law the one the Law of Nature or Creation which calls for perfect Obedience in every point The other the Law of Grace which accepts of sincerity we must if justified be made righteous to both these accordingly I shall discourse of both We are under the Moral Law of Nature this is immortalized by its own intrinsecal rectitude it so naturally results out of the Relation which Man stands in towards God that as long as God is God the Supream Truth and Goodness and Man Man a Creature endued with Reason and Will it cannot cease to be or to oblige it is not imaginable that such a thing as Reason should be unbound to look up to the original Truth from whence it came or that such a thing as Free-will should be unbound to embrace that infinite Good which made it this Law stands faster than the pillars of Heaven and Earth it hath a double Sanction a promise of Eternal Life upon perfect obedience and a threatning of eternal Death upon the least Transgression The promise though never abrogated by God could not of it self bud or bring forth Life a Sinner because a Sinner not being capable of perfect obedience could not have Life from that promise cessat materia There could be no person capable of the promised Life the Law was weak though not in it self yet through the Flesh the sin of Man Man sinned away the Promise but the Threatning he could not sin away nay by his sin he put himself under the Curse and Wrath of it Sin made him a fit object and fuel for these the case standing thus how or which way should a Sinner be justified as to the Law In a Sinner there was matter enough for the Treatning but more for the Promise Death might justly seize him but Life he was not payable of by vertue of that Law here infinite Wisdom found out that which no created Eye could spy out a way of Justification without abrogating the Law thus therefore it was contrived the Law being under the power of the Legislator was relaxed though not abrogated there may be a double notion of the Law either it may be taken as it is in it self in summo apice in its primordial rigor requiring perfect personal obedience from us and thus it doth not cannot justifie us there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an utter impossibility upon it Rom. 8.3 Righteousness could not come by the Law nay in this sense it worketh wrath it condemns and curses the Sinner or else it may be taken as it is by the great Legislator relaxed to admit of a satisfaction in our Sponsor Jesus Christ and thus it hath its end its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Righteousness which satisfied it in him thus it cannot condemn Believers a satisfied Law so far as it is satisfied hath nothing to say against them who partake of that satisfaction That of Learned Mr. Gataker is remarkable Justificatio nostri tum ab Evangelio tum à Lege pendet à Lege quatenùs eidem satisfit pro delictis adversùs eam admissis ab Evangelio quatenùs satisfactio non à nobis sed à Christo Vicariâ operâ pro nobis exhibetur The Gospel reveals such a Sponsor as hath satisfied the Law for us the Law being satisfied cannot condemn those who partake of that satisfaction It appears by this That Christ's Righteousness is that which constitutes us righteous as to the Law only here many worthy learned Divines are at a difference how it doth so doubtless it doth it in a way of Imputation but the mode of that Imputation is not agreed on Some say that Christ's Righteousness is the meritorious cause of our Justification and so imputed to us in the effects in that pardon which discharges us from the Law Others That it is it self in some sort imputed to us and so becomes the material cause of our Justification I take it our former Divines who disputed with the Papists about Imputed Righteousness are of the latter opinion Hence Bishop Davenant saith De Just hab fol. 364 373. that Ipsissima Christi obedientia nobis imputatur quasi esset nostra personalis The very obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it were our personal Righteousness And again he saith that In se it is causa meritoria Justificationis but as it is apply'd to Believers Subit vicem causae formalis it is in the room of a formal cause 'T is true he saith That it is imputed to us ad aliquem effectum not that it is imputed only in the effect but that it is imputed in a measure and to some intents though not in the full latitude or as it is in Christ The Learned Professors of Leyden determine thus Mirum hîc videri non debet Christi Justitiam non meritoriae solùm sed materialis imò formalis causae rationem habere cum id diversimodè fiat nempe quâ illud est propter quod in quo sive ex quo per quod justificamur To quote no more If Christ's Righteousness be only a meritorious cause of Justification then our former Divines have striven in the dark the Controversies between them and the Papists in this point have been but a vain jangling no Papist ever denied that Christ merited Justification for us no Protestant should ask any more The Council of Trent laying down the causes of Justification saith Chistus suâ sanctissimâ Passione in ligno Crucis nobis Justificationem meruit pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit Here our Divines should have acquiesced in silence but surely they thought there was somewhat more in it For my own part I conceive Christ's Righteousness is so far imputed to us as to be the matter of our Justification before I come to offer my Reasons I shall lay down several things tending to explain my meaning in this point First There is a double Imputation The one when a thing inherent or transient is imputed to the very Subject or Agent of it The other when it is imputed to those in conjunction with the Subject or Agent as being parts and portions of him The first Imputation is according to the course of Nature the second is according to some just constitution made touching the same the former is unquestionable the latter is that which is to be cleared that such an Imputation is possible and when it is done truth may appear by these Instances The primitive Righteousness of our Nature was only inherent in Adam Yet was it imputed to us we were by God esteemed as righteous in him else we are not fallen Creatures neither do we need any such thing as Regeneration Adam's sin was an act done by him yet
in that case is treated in point of punishment as a righteous Man but he is not such indeed his plea is only a pardon he is free only à paenâ not à culpâ the Judge doth not esteem him as righteous but as one exempt from punishment nay an immunity which is ex Justitiâ as in the case of an innocent person though it suppose a Righteousness in him yet it is no more it self a righteousness than in the other case it is distinct from his Righteousness as a consequent is from its antecedent Now if a pardon or immunity from punishment be not our Righteousness then Christ's Righteousness which was penal and obediential to an infinite value and did compensate the very culpâ and free us from it is as soon as it is made ours by Imputation our Righteousness against the Law Thirdly If a pardon might be called Justification it is but improperly such there are then as I will suppose for Discourse sake three sorts of Justification to be distinguished one by the idem the very same perfect Righteousness which the Law calls for another by the tantundem a Righteousness which is a plenary satisfaction to the broken Law a third by Remission only the first is more strictly Justification than the second because the very Letter of the Law is fulfilled in it which it is not in the other the second is more properly Justification than the third because there is a plenary compensation to the Law in it when in the other there is nothing but a meer condonation the third is the most improper Justification of all the rest because it communicates not Righteousness but an Indulgence Now in our case had there been no satisfaction at all Justification if possible must have stood in remission only but a great and glorious satisfaction being made it seems very strange that Justification should consist only in the less proper in remission which frees us à paenâ whilst the proper Christ's Satisfaction which in a way of compensation frees us à culpâ is waved It is true it is not totally waved it is allowed to be an antecedent meritorious cause of Justification but being no Ingredient in it Justification still consists in the less proper while the more proper in that respect is waved Before I pass on I must consider one objection pardon takes away reatum penae the obligation to punishment and what more can be done to a sinner still the reatus culpae abides the fault will be a fault the Sinner a Sinner that is one who sinned and if no more can be done to a sinner why is not immunity from punishment his Righteousnes or what can be Righteousness if that be not so In answer to this great Objection I shall offer two or three things First It is indeed a rule of reason that factum infectum fieri non potest yet it is worthy the consideration of the Learned whether the culpâ which ever continues in facto in it self may not yet cease in jure so far as not to redound upon the Person to make him culpable I shall only mention one instance and so leave it the Blessed Virgin not being as her Son was conceived of the Holy Ghost was no doubt fubject to Original Sin that put a culpâ upon every part of her and factum infectum fieri non potest Nevertheless when the Word was made Flesh when his Body was framed out of the Substance of the Virgin no culpâ did remain or redound upon his Humane Nature much less upon his Sacred Person which assumed it in Sacred Mysteries we must not be too peremptory upon our reason but speak with all caution and reverence Secondly Beatus culpae or guilt of fault may be considered under a double notion either in it self in its intrinsecal desert of punishment or else in its redundancy upon the sinner which consists in three things First it so redounds upon him as to denominate him a sinner that is one who hath sinned then it so redounds as to make him continue worthy of punishment and again it so redounds as actually to oblige him to punishment Now the reatus in its self in its intrinsecal desert must needs be perpetual because sin cannot cease to be sin the denominating him a sinner one who hath sinned must be perpetual too because factum infectum fieri non potest but as I take it that redundancy which makes him worthy of punishment is removed in Justification and that which actually obliges him to punishment is removed in remission it is usually said in the Schools transit actus manet reatus after the Act of Sin is passed and gone the guilt abides we may say of the sinner that he hath sinned in praeterito nay and in praesenti that he is filius mortis worthy to die and suffer punishment but after he hath received the great atonement after Christ's satisfaction which is more than an aequipondium to his unworthiness is Imputed and made over to him he continues no longer worthy of punishment the sin it self is worthy of it but he is not he was once worthy of it but now he is no longer so I cannot imagine that Christ's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worthy ones Rev. 3.1 should remain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy of Death Rom. 1.32 Or that the pure Heavens should be inhabited by such as still continue worthy of Hell Christ's Righteousness so much out-weighs and counterpoises the meritum paenae that is in sin that though the worthiness of punishment cannot be separated from the sin it self yet it ceases to redound upon the sinner as soon as he believes and hath an interest in that Righteousness It s true the sinner as he is in himself is worthy of punishment but as he is in Christ a part or Member of him a participant of his Satisfaction he is not worthy thereof Thirdly If we look distinctly upon a satisfaction or plenary compensation for sin of the one hand and upon a pardon or immunity from punishment of the other it will be easily seen where our Righteousness lies and what is our justifying Plea and matter against the Law a pardon frees from punishment but a Satisfaction salves the honour of the broken Law repairs the damage done to it compensates for the violations of it and comes in the Room of that perfect conformity which the Law did primarily aim at in this therefore not in the other stands our Righteousness as to the Law Thus much touching my fifth Reason that Justification consists not in a pardon Sixthly Christ suffered nostro loco in our place and stead those pregnant Scriptures that he gave his Life a ransom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the stead of many Matth. 20.28 that he gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a counterprize for all 1 Tim. 2.6 that he suffered the just for the unjust 1 Pet. 3.18 are no cold improprieties but full proofs of it he did sustinere
Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us then God sees no sin is in us Ans God sees not sin in us with a vindictive Eye but with an intuitive one he doth nay he cannot but do so as long as there is omniscience in him and sin in us Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us as it is a Satisfaction and that supposes us to have been Sinners else what need could there be of a Satisfaction though the Law were satisfied in point of Justification yet still it demands duty in point of Sanctification though that Satisfaction take away the imperfection of our duties and Graces as to the guilt yet not as to the very being Object 7. If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us there needs no new Obedience in order to Salvation Ans The Socinians object this against Christ's Satisfaction in which notion I take it that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us * Cont. Meis Fol. 138. Si jà m Deo plenè persolutum est quod ei à nobis plenè debebatur quid adhuc nos pietate bonis operibus maceremus jam nec Deus nos jure punire not ab aeternâ vitâ jure excludere potest so Schlictingius But Christ's Satisfafaction may very well stand with our obedience Christ satisfied the Law so far as that his righteousness imputed justifies us against the Law but not so far as that it should be our very sanctity and holiness for then of imputed it should become such as they are inherent which is impossible in this respect therefore the Law asks obedience from us every Believer is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Under the Law to Christ as far under it as it is a rule to our life Nay Christ's righteousness is far from evacuating our obedience that it is the great foundation upon which the Holy Spirit the fountain of Holiness is communicated to us as it was under the Law in cleansing the Leper the holy Oyl was put upon the Atoning Blood Levit. 14.17 So it is under the Gospel in purifying us First the Blood of Christ is sprinkled on us by imputation and then the holy Unction the Divine spirit is poured out upon us were there no Atoning blood shed the Holy Spirit would not so much as touch upon fallen man were that Blood not applied to us the Holy Spirit would never dwell in us as a principle of obedience Object 8. Christs righteousness cannot be both the meritorious and material cause of Justification for then it should be both an external and internal cause thereof Which cannot be Ans We must not here take our measures from reason it was well said by one In Logicis ratio facit fidem in Theologicis fides facit rationem Evangelical mysteries though above the line of humane reason must be owned in Faith though the mode of them be inexplicable by us Christ's righteousness may be considered under a double respect either as it is offered up to God or as it is applied to men In the first respect it is common for all so far as to render them justifiable on Gospel terms In the second it is peculiarized to Believers In the first it founds the promises of justification by Christ's blood in the second it executes them and which is as easily conceiveable as the other in the first it is a meritorious cause of justification in the second a material Having answered these Objections which I look upon as most material I shall conclude as I began that Christ's righteousness as it is a Satisfaction is so far imputed to his believing members as to be the matter of their justification The Law in that point can ask no more of them than that satisfaction there is enough in that to answer for all their sins Thus far I have treated touching our righteousness as to the Law I now come to speak of our righteousness as to the Gospel Christ's righteousness answers as to the Law of works Faith answers as to the terms of the Gospel Do this or die was satisfied by Christ's righteousness Believe and live is answered by Faith Christus est impletio Legis Spirious est impletio Evangelii Now here I shall first shew the necessity of this two-fold righteousness and then the connexion which is between them 1. There is a necessity of this two-fold righteousness God at first made man a holy righteous creature and upon the fall he set to his hand a second time to lift up man out of the Chains of Sin and wrath into a state of Grace and Life eternal God as Creator gave man a Law of perfect obedience suited to his primitive nature and as it were interwoven with the principles of it God as Redeemer gave us a Law of Grace in which there is as much abatement and condescention to our faln estate as could comport with his own Holiness and Majesty In the former God stood upon the highest terms of perfect sinless obedience in the latter he comes down to the lowest terms imaginable He will justifie and save every one who by true Faith yields and resigns himself up to the conditions of the Gospel where there are distinct Laws there must be distinct righteousnesses to answer them That which comes up to the condescending terms of the Gospel falls much short of the high terms of the Law That which satisfies the Law is a thing of incomparably greater excellency than that which answers to the terms of the Gospel There are two distinct charges or accusations to be supposed the one that we are Sinners such as have broken the Law The other that we are Unbelievers such as have rejected the Gospel Here therefore must be distinct Plea's To the First the Plea is Christ's Satisfaction to discharge us from the Law To the Second the Plea is Faith which is the condition of the Gospel To the charge of final unbelief it is no Plea to say that Christ hath satisfied to the charge of being a sinner the Plea doth not consist in Faith it self but in its object viz. Christ's Satisfaction The righteousnesses themselves are of different natures as to the Law our righteousness is without us in the glorious Satisfaction of Christ made ours by a gracious imputation as to the Gospel our righteousness is within us in that Faith which complies with the Evangelical terms as to the Law our righteousness is not the idem but a satisfaction made for the breaches of it as to the Gospel our Faith is the very idem which the Gospel condition calls for It is of great concern in Justification to place these two righteousnesses in their proper Orbes if either of them be carried out of their own Sphear Religion is subverted As to the Law Christ's Satisfaction is our only righteousness it is true Faith receives the Atonement but neither Faith nor any other inherent Grace can here be our righteousness All these have their spots of imperfection how faltring is our Faith how cold our charity how much is
the very instant of believing before any Good Works spring up in his Life hath a true title to the promises of the Gospel the Righteousness of Christ is upon him the Spirit of Grace is communicated to him Obedience is a blessed fruit which ensues upon these Thirdly Obedience is necessary though not to the first entrance into Justification yet to the continuance of it Not indeed as a Cause but as a Condition De Just Actual fol. 404. Thus Bishop Davenant Bona opera sunt necessaria ad Justificationis statum retinendum conservandum non ut causae quae per se efficiant aut mereantur hanc conservationem sed ut media seu conditiones fine quibus Deus non vult Justificationis Gratiam in hominibus conservare If a Believer who is instantly justified upon believing would continue justified he must sincerely obey God Though his Obedience in measure and degree reach not fully to the Precept of the Gospel yet in truth and substance it comes up to the Condition of it else he cannot continue justified this to me is very evident we are at first justified by a living Faith such as virtually is Obedience and cannot continue justified by a dead one such as operates not at all We are at first justified by a Faith which accepts Christ as a Saviour and Lord and cannot continue justified by such a Faith as would divide Christ taking his Salvation from guilt and by disobedience casting off his Lordship could we suppose that which never comes to pass that a Believer should not sincerely obey How should he continue justified if he continue justified he must as all justified persons have needs have a right to life eternal and if he have such a right how can he be judged according to his works no good works being found in him after his believing how can he be adjudged to life or how to death if he continue justified These things evince that obedience is a condition necessary as to our continuance in a state of Justification Nevertheless it is not necessary that obedience should be perfect as to the Evangelical precept but that it should be such that the truth of Grace which the Evangelical condition calls for may not fail for want of it Blessed are they that do his Commandments that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the City Rev. 22.14 The first fundamental right to Heaven they have by the Faith of Christ only but sincere obedience is necessary that that right may be continued to them In this sence we may fairly construe that conclusion of St. James Te see then how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only Jam. 2.24 Faith brings a man into a justified estate But may he rest here No his good works must be a proof of his Faith and give a kind of experiment of the life of it Nay they are the Evangelical condition upon which his blessed estate of justification is continued to him in foro legis Christ and his Righteousness is all neither our Faith nor our Works can supply the room of his Satisfaction to justifie us against the Law But in foro gratiae our obedience answers to the Evangelical condition and is a means to continue our justified estate It 's true St. Paul asserts that we are justified by Faith not by Works Rom. 4. Which seems directly contrary to that of St. James that a man is justified by Works not by Faith only but the difference is reconciled very fairly if we do but consider what the Works are in St. Paul and what they are in St. James In St. Paul the Works are perfect Works such as correspond to the Law such as make the reward to be of Debt vers 4. Hence Calvin saith operantem vocat qui suis meritis aliquid promeretur non operantem cui nihil debetur operum merito In St. James the Works are sincere only such as answer not to the Law but to the Evangelical condition such as merit not but are rewarded out of meer Grace Works in St. Paul are such as stand in competition or coordination with Christ and his Righteousness which satisfied the Law for us Works in St. James are such as stand in due subordination to Christ and his Righteousness and are required only as fruits of Faith and conditions upon which we are to continue in a justified estate Works in St. Paul are such as no man can do Nay as no man must so much as imagine that he can do unless he will cast away Christ and Grace Works in St. James are such as must be done or else we prove our selves hypocrites and our Faith dead and vain in both Apostles Abraham is brought in as an instance In St. Paul the question was whether Abraham was a Sinner and here the Righteousness of Christ did justify him In St. James the question was whether Abraham was a true Believer and here his obedience did prove him to be so and did answer to the Evangelical condition these differences considered it is easie to understand how we cannot be justified by good works in St. Pauls sence and yet how according to St. James good works are necessary to prove our Faith a living one and to answer the condition of the Gospel that the state of Justification into which we entred by Faith may be continued To shut up this Discourse touching Justification we must here stand and adore the infinite Wisdom and mercy of God in this great Work what poor faln Creatures were we into what an horrible gulf of sin and misery were we sunk whither could we turn or how could we think ever to stand before the holy God storms of wrath hung over our heads and might justly have fallen upon us but how should we be justified or ever escape Might the pure perfect Law be abrogated that we might be acquitted No it could not be it was immortalized by its own intrinsecal rectitude and equity might God wave his holiness and justice that his mercy might be manifested upon us would the great Rector pardon the Sin of a world without any recompence or Satisfaction No his Law is sacred and honorable Sin is no light or indifferent thing in his eyes Where then shall a satisfaction be found no Creature could possibly undertake it no Man no Angel could or durst start such a thought as that one of the Sacred Trinity should do it See then and admire this incomparable work the Son of God very God leaves his Fathers bosom assumes our frail flesh in it fulfills all righteousness and at last is made Sin and a Curse for us that we might be justified and pardoned No sooner are we by Faith in Union with him but his righteousness is upon us his blood washes away all our guilt through him we but vile worms in our selves become no less than Sons of God and Heirs of Heaven What are we